Summary: in a video image of the victim recorded in a house with his consent; “… I regret to say this, let our prime minister hear it… if he is my prime minister, let him hear my voice… goodbye to all of you, Allah forbid, all of you.”according to the words in the format and the scope of the file; in the video of the speech in question and the image of the victim, the victim related to the field of personal life and the private life of a nature that would violate the privacy of the loaded image or sound due to the lack of the defendant by the disclosure of the legal elements of the crime of violation of privacy did not occur in the concrete case of the video within the knowledge of the victim’s mobile phone has been disclosed and transferred to the defendant in the video above-quoted words, compared to that published the video, the victims should be expected by considering that the defendant’s 136/1 of the Penal Code Act. it must also be accepted that it will not constitute a crime to illegally give or seize the data in the article and its paragraph.
T.C. Supreme Court 12. Criminal Division E: 2018/5377 K: 2018/11368 K.T.: 28.11..2018
The conviction of the defendant for violating the privacy of private life by disclosing images or sounds was considered necessary by the local public prosecutor and the defendant upon appeal, reviewing the file:
According to the scope of the file examined, the decision of the local public prosecutor was made on the basis of incomplete examination, the rejection of other appeals related to subuta and not based on the reason of the defendant, but;
1-a victim working as a cemetery officer …’s, wearing a shroud on him, criticizing a terrorist organization based on ethnicity and making statements that he is not afraid of death and loves his homeland, working in the same cemetery with him and ending a friendship relationship due to a problem between them by the defendant…, due to the publication on a social networking site called Facebook TCK 134/2. in the case subject to an allegation and admission that he has committed a crime of violating the privacy of private life by disclosing images or sounds in the article and paragraph;
“…I regret to say this, let our prime minister hear this… if he is my prime minister, let him hear this voice … goodbye to all of you, Allah forbid, all of you.”according to the words in the format and the scope of the file; in the video of the speech in question and the image of the victim, the victim related to the field of personal life and the private life of a nature that would violate the privacy of the loaded image or sound due to the lack of the defendant by the disclosure of the legal elements of the crime of violation of privacy did not occur in the concrete case of the video within the knowledge of the victim’s mobile phone has been disclosed and transferred to the defendant in the video above-quoted words, compared to that published the video, the victims should be expected by considering that the defendant’s 136/1 of the Penal Code Act. since it is understood that it will not constitute a crime to illegally give or seize the data in the article and paragraph, CMK should be acquitted in accordance with Article 223/2-a, paragraph and paragraph, while a conviction provision should be established against the defendant on legal and not sufficient written grounds for violating the confidentiality of private life by disclosing images or sounds thrown at the defendant,
2-according to acceptance and application:
53 of the TCK as a legal result of the conviction for a prison sentence for a crime that he intentionally committed. deprivation of Rights written in paragraph (C) of Paragraph (1) of the article, 53/3 of the same law. article and paragraph should also be ruled by the evil eye and the Constitutional Court 53 of the TCK. article 24.11.2015 on deprivation of Rights published in the Official Gazette dated 08.10.2015, 2014/140 basis, 2015/85 decision no.,
Since the appeals of the local public prosecutor and the accused are considered in place in this respect, the provision is for these reasons 8 of the law No. 5320. 321 of Cmuk No. 1412, which is still being implemented in accordance with article. it was decided unanimously on 28.11.2018 to violate the request in accordance with the article.